On the heels of my mentioning my own pro-questioning and inclusive attitude towards religious people being skeptics on the Skeptically Speaking radio show this week, I read in the NY Skeptics blog about how people are indeed speaking how the ‘atheist = skeptic’ attitude really does need to be questioned.
Well done to the NY SkeptiCamp for bringing the issue to the forefront so it can be discussed more!
Gotham Skeptic – ‘Why Skeptics Don’t Have to be Atheists’ by The Quixotic Man:
If the organized atheist movement wants to spend its time improving the image of atheists or fighting religion, I have no issue with that. The first is a great goal, and the second, hey, I might not agree with it but if they feel it’s important than I say have a ball. What we must realize, however, is that this is an agenda of the movement, and it’s an agenda that I believe will be contrary to the skeptical movement’s goal of spreading critical thinking to those not already in our choir.
This morning, as I head out (and take a break from the internet for a while) – USA Today writes: Atheists need a different voice‘ – (is that a nod to Carol Gillian, I wonder?)
We all know the names (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) of those angry white men who tend to antagonize the world’s believers. But the most persuasive voices for the ‘new New Atheism’ tend to be women…
…The second was less controversial and less utopian: From this perspective, atheism is just another point of view, deserving of constitutional protection and a fair hearing. Its goal is not a world without religion but a world in which believers and nonbelievers coexist peaceably, and atheists are respected, or at least tolerated.
These competing approaches could not be further apart. One is an invitation to a duel. The other is a fair-minded appeal for recognition and respect. Or, to put it in terms of the gay rights movement, one is like trying to turn everyone gay and the other is like trying to secure equal rights for gay men and lesbians.
…But there is a different voice emerging — call it the new New Atheism — and with it a very different agenda from that of Hitchens and his angry acolytes. This friendlier atheism sounds more like a civil rights movement than a crusade. And it is far more likely to issue from the lips of friendly women than from the spittle of angry men.
And there’s a list of who they consider to be examples of these ‘Gentler atheists’! I mentioned Julia Sweeney in my discussion with Dr Mark Henn in the article The Deist Skeptic – Not a Contradiction. However, I ponder why (once again…) why the word ‘atheist’ is being used to mean ‘skeptic’ in their heading…
Gentler atheists
Female skeptics:
• Rebecca Goldstein, philosopher, novelist and author of the forthcoming 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction.
• Jennifer Hecht, poet, blogger, historian and author of Doubt: A History (2003).
• Susan Jacoby, director of the New York branch of the Center for Inquiry and author of The Age of American Unreason (2008).
• Nica Lalli, former PTA president, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In and self-described “pink atheist.”
• Julia Scheeres, journalist and author of Jesus Land (2005), a memoir about life in exile (and peril) at a fundamentalist reform school in the Dominican Republic.
• Julia Sweeney, former Saturday Night Live cast member and star of the autobiographical monologue Letting Go of God.
And some male types who also qualify as kinder, gentler atheists:
• William Lobdell, former Los Angeles Times religion reporter whose memoir, Losing My Religion (2009), is wistful rather than irate.
• Hemant Mehta, math teacher whose Friendly Atheist website defines this type as someone who “can talk to a religious person without invoking an argument.”
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I think I understand the use of the word “skeptic” in this case and others like it.
Those of us who spend a good deal of time talking about and promoting skepticism define “skeptic” in a general sense, basically as one who does not accept claims blindly. The layperson (for lack of a better word – I don’t think you can call people non-skeptics simply because they are not invested in skepticism) usually defines “skeptic” as one who doubts something specific.
I think in this case the author is not implying that the two words are interchangeable. Instead I think the author means “one who doubts the existence of a supreme being”.
I actually kind of like that. It suggests to me that these atheists do not deny that the existence of god is possible, just that it is highly unlikely.
Hi, sorry, will fish it out of spam!
Why is religion still subject to special pleading?
Spreading critical thinking is a laudable goal. And if you want to channel your skepticism into teaching, it’s fine. But at some point you have to acknowledge that the debunking, Mythbusting style is also skepticism: it is, in effect, teaching critical thinking by example.
People that believe in supernatural forces, whether they be fairies, homeopathics, or Bible thumpers, are not thinking critically. Yes, there are more of the latter than the former – but that’s why it’s so important to target them first! This whole attitude that if skeptics are viewed as atheists we’ll scare off the believers is wrong headed in the worst way.
First, I have no problem with the “kinder and gentler” types in general. But, I think it’s important to admit openly that their choices to distance themselves from the scary atheists is a strategic one, something often pointed out in such articles as the above, but then glossed over.
The fact is that, I believe, agnostic atheism actually is one of the default positions I expect a skeptic to take if they are, in fact, consistent in their beliefs. Why? For the same reason that I expect a self-identified skeptic to say they don’t know with 100% certainty that bigfoot doesn’t exist, but that they suspect strongly he doesn’t. I see no difference in the two.
As for deism, while it handily removes all claims on physical evidence for the deity, by removing the deity from any influence on the universe since prior to its beginning, it is still a positive statement for which (in the case of deism) no possible evidence can be presented and falls prey to Occam’s Razor in the same way that Russel’s Teapot does.
I admit I tend to be one of the angry types of atheists, though perhaps not so much as others. However, I can see the strategic workings of those who wish to be more tentative in their dealings with religion. As I stated, I don’t have any problem with that attitude and wish them all the luck in the world. But, it does smack of dishonesty a bit when some on that end of the spectrum suggest that skepticism shouldn’t imply atheism. I want to be clear so I’m not misunderstood here … I don’t think one MUST be an atheist to be a skeptic. But, I think that someone who is a theist (or deist) who claims to be a skeptic is engaging in compartmentalization and rationalization and being inconsistent. This, to me, is the same as Bill Maher claiming to be a skeptic because of his atheism and being a nutbar when it comes to alternative medicine and anti-vaccination. An inconsistent skeptic may be an ally, but it has to raise a red flag in the back of your mind when they show themselves to be so inconsistent in applying skepticism.
In closing, I think, like a civil rights movement, there is room for and value in having both kinds of people. There are the kinder, gentler types (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr.) and there are the scary types (e.g. Malcolm X). Both are effective in raising awareness and, eventually, in winning the day.
Sorry about the test. My longer comment apparently got blown into the ether.
I was testing to see if maybe moderation was turned on or if it had been lost. Looks like the latter.
I will lay my cards on the table up front and admit that I find a lot in common with the angry atheists like the big, scary Dawkins and Myers. However, I’ll also state, here at the beginning, that I can see some wisdom in the strategy advised by the kinder, gentler types out there. Now, for some specific points I’d like to address.
I don’t see anything wrong, per se, with assuming that one of the default stances of any consistent skeptic is atheism. This is, to me, as natural as assuming a consistently skeptical person will not be a believer in Bigfoot or homeopathy. Mind you, the word “atheism” is always meant whenever any of the “New Atheists” use it to mean agnostic atheism. In the same way that we must remain agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot, in principle, but in practice we can act as if he doesn’t exist and plainly state that we don’t think there’s any reason whatsoever to believe in him.
Before I draw too much fire because of the above paragraph, let me explain a little more. I totally get that you can be an atheist and not be a skeptic (e.g. Bill Maher). But, the reason for this is not because skepticism doesn’t imply agnostic atheism. It is because people are capable of being inconsistent in their thought processes. They can compartmentalize certain areas of knowledge and belief, applying different standards to the different compartments. Bill Maher, for instance, does this with religion and alternative medicine, and the skeptical community justifiably called his skepticism into question … suggesting that he is, in fact, an ideologue who just happens to be an atheist. I think this is true. For those same reasons, I think a person who is skeptical of Bigfoot, homeopathy, and astrology, but who is a theist, is engaging in inconsistent thought processes, too. I don’t think this makes them a bad person, but it does call into question their ability to consistently think critically. We all have our flaws, of course, but theism is a pretty big blind spot in the skeptical view of the world and I have a hard time assuming anything about a theistic skeptic other than that they are incapable of turning their skeptical eye inward. Bad form, IMO.
Now, does this mean I think skepticism should refuse to allow inconsistent skeptics a place and a voice in the movement? Not at all. As I stated up top, I see the strategic value in courting the undecideds and those who are not yet ready to “give up the ghost”, so to speak, and ditch that most deep-seated of superstitions, their religion. But, I think sometimes those advocating this strategy err a bit too much on the side of not admitting that it’s simply a strategy. The kinder, gentler sorts would get much less pushback from the angry, mean sorts if they didn’t try to hide their “big tent” strategy behind a veil of undue respect for what is simply one more unsupported statement about our universe (“a god or gods exist”).
As for deists, they certainly are the least objectionable kind of theists from a skeptical standpoint. Their proposed deity is crafted specifically to have no discernible effect on the universe since it’s beginning, and as such, makes no claims about the nature of reality whatsoever. It is, unlike most other gods that have at least some claimed attributes that should impart a mark on reality, truly unfalsifiable. However, with absolutely no supporting evidence, the deistic god falls prey to Occam’s Razor as swiftly as does Russel’s Teapot. One is free to believe in it, of course, but to do so is not an act of skepticism if, by skepticism, we mean an honest attempt to base our positive beliefs on reason and evidence.
Lastly, since I’m sure I’ve pissed a lot of folks off, let me close by saying I don’t think this is a situation where everyone has to conform to one type or the other: kinder and gentler or angry and scary. Social movements often benefit from having both sorts of people. For example, the civil rights movement in the U.S. benefited from both Martin Luther King Jr. (the kinder, gentler sort) and from Malcolm X (the angry and scary sort … at least early on).
In closing, I think that the kinder, gentler types should be honest and admit that their concerns are entirely strategic, and not that religion is some special category of thought which should be spared from skeptical commentary. Instead, they should be open about advocating overlooking it because they think that the religious constituency is required for an ultimate victory. It is as calculating a political move as a politician who only goes into church during an election year. There’s nothing necessarily wrong about it, but it is more manipulative than the kinder, gentler types let on … and it irks us angry, scary types when it’s suggested that we’re the ones being disingenuous. Remember, though, my take home is that there’s enough room for both sorts. I just feel icky pretending to respect someone’s unfounded religious beliefs in the same way I would feel icky pretending to respect their beliefs about homeopathy.
Hmm. Okay, that’s the second time I’ve typed up a long comment and had it eaten. There is obviously some sort of size limit. Maybe comments of a certain length are withheld for moderation and short comments are not? Or maybe comments over a certain length are simply rejected? I dunno, but this time I thought to copy my comment to a text file before I clicked submit, so at least I didn’t waste the effort.
Let me know what the deal is, Kylie. This is a subject I’m interested in commenting on, but I appear to be having lots of trouble doing so.
@Baka: I totally agree with you that if you’re consistent in your critical thinking, then agnostic atheism should be the outcome. But people aren’t consistent in their thinking. It’d be nice if they were, but that’s rather expecting the human mind to become radically different than it is now. I think all we can ultimately do is teach by example. Yes, the Mythbusters type of skepticism is just as important, maybe more so, than the Randi-style debunking. But we have to meet people where they are, not where we’d like them to be so I don’t think it helps us, as skeptics, to belittle and denigrate religious believers. And some atheists are doing that.
Interesting to note – Pandagon considers it a rather ‘sexist’ take (considering PZ Myers gave the impression that he was struggling to name a few female atheists in a recent post… I’m still wondering if at least this prompts discussion and awareness of more than the ‘Horsemen’ out there).
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/sexism_and_atheist_baiting_all_rolled_into_one/
I quote from the comments over there – a Jenniferett:
“I disagree – I rather take a stereotype than being ignored any day. Why? Because this article has gotten people talking. People are going to check out the women he listed there and realize they don’t fart rainbows. People are going to comment on the stereotypes of the article (which there are way too many), and those comments are going to generate even more discussion about female atheists. That will lead to even more female atheists being named, and even more exposure.
The original article was crap, but the result was good.”
I’d like to apologize for posting two huge and very redundant comments up there. My first got caught in the spam filter, as did my second. What appears now is a first and second draft of the same big comment.
Gazza, I’m glad you brought up the aspect of special pleading that this feels like surrounding religion with some parts of the skeptical community. It really is a form of special pleading. I maintain, however, that its engaged in not as a logical fallacy by most who advocate it, but rather as a calculating strategic choice … and one I’m not entirely certain is a wrong one. I do tend to sympathize more with the New Atheists up front and honest engagement with religious woo in the same way I respect Australian Skeptics’ up front and honest engagement of, for instance, the anti-vaxxers.
Leo does make a very good point above about human nature. We are very prone to the sorts of compartmentalization and inconsistencies I described. Hell, that’s really what critical thought and skepticism is about: teaching yourself how NOT to fool yourself. It takes practice and even the best among us is not 100% successful all the time. So, yes, that’s why I say I’m not entirely convinced that the strategic move advocated by the kinder, gentler types is devoid of value. Maybe they are advocating the best way forward given the shortcomings of the human minds we’re dealing with.
I still don’t like the manipulative “feel” of such action, though. I won’t necessarily condemn others for participating in it, but I can’t help but feel like it’s condescending to our audience. If I think someone’s full of shit, whether they’re a believer in UFOs or Yahweh, pretending that I think that’s just dandy seems deceptive and disrespectful to me. If I’m harboring delusions, I certainly hope one of you tells me straight and doesn’t try and tip toe around my feelings. As the Young Australian Skeptics are fond of noting on their Pseudoscientists podcast: I do not wish to persist in delusion one minute longer than I have to.
Kylie, I think my comment got caught in the spam filter again. :/ Any way I can avoid that? Write shorter comments, maybe?
While Kylie, hopefully, resurrects my latest lengthy comment from the spam filter, I will take this moment to say I followed the link she gave above and read the article by Amanda Marcotte. I love that article! Very well expressed. I must confess I hadn’t really picked up on how sexist it was for Prothero to imply that atheist women were more easily dismissed and therefore more suitable for public consumption, but Marcotte is absolutely correct on that point. And, I also noticed how terrible Prothero’s analogy to homosexuality was, but she nails it much better than I would have if I’d commented on it. Thanks very much for the link, Kylie.
I think that there’s a misinterpretation of what they’re both reading though?
Prothero is saying: “The ‘gentler’ atheists tend to be women.”
PZ accuses him of saying: “Female atheists tend to be ‘gentler’.”
See the difference? It’s not as if he hasn’t given examples of what he’s called ‘gentle’ male atheists, if you look through the list?
I have NO idea what this spam filter is up to!!
Just zip me an email if that happens again and I’ll get onto it. 
You must log in to post a comment.